list_scripts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and 'List' clearly signals a read-only enumeration with no mutation or execution. It also discloses what kind of data is returned, though it does not address edge cases like empty libraries or script availability semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part adds information: the action, the target resource, and the returned metadata fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource and the fields the agent can expect. There is no additional context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs, and no parameter details are missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('available C# scripts in the script library'), and the returned metadata shape. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like list_test_scripts because it scopes to the script library and describes metadata fields.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the basic use case obvious: enumerate available scripts and their metadata. However, it does not explicitly guide an agent on when to prefer list_scripts over siblings such as list_test_scripts or run_test_script, leaving the routing decision to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.